Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge?

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot.nul>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Archived: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 06:56:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Up To A Challenge?
>From: Eleanor White <eleanor.nul>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:39:16 -0500>Subject: Anyone Up To A Challenge?>Last evening, on Coast to Coast AM, host Barbara Simpson>interviewed astronomer and physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, who has>written a boot titled "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men".
_Love_ the title...
>He is also a Christian minister, and offers the opinion that the>many UFO incidents where physical traces were observed on the>earth are in fact "angelic being" effects.
These Christian UFO debunkers are a bizarre lot. They've got no
problem at all with the downright supernatural, but go into a
frenzy at the notion of the merely unusual or exotic.
>His bottom line is that since UFOs "can't get here from there",
An utter fallacy, for reasons Stan Friedman (for one) has
tirelessly explained.
<snip>
>Dr. Ross made three points in particular that curled my toes:>1. That the _only_ common factor among people who> have "residual" UFO sightings or "those _alleged_> abductions" is that those people are all involved in> the _occult_ !
How does he define "occult"? John Keel has said that ufology is
simply the demonology of the present day, in which case this
list is brimming with "occultists."
>2. UFOs cannot travel faster than light because they> cannot violate the laws of physics.
Who said anything about superluminal travel? ETs could have
parked a "mothership" in our solar system thousands of years ago
and gone on to explore their immediate environment via small,
convenient probes. Why do debunkers expect each individual UFO
to be an interstellar craft?
>3. The government is hopelessly inept and cannot keep> a secret for more than a short time.
Again, Friedman and others have shed some very interesting light
on exactly this point. It _is_ possible, and the reason it's
possible is the concept of "need-to-know."